National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 Aeronautics Research
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

5
Space and Earth Science Research

INTRODUCTION

The focus of this study is an appraisal of the equipment, facilities, and support services used for fundamental science and engineering research at NASA. A key related question is whether the NASA capabilities are adequate to support NASA’s goals. To answer this question, the vision and goals of NASA in space and Earth science, which reside in the SMD, must be understood. SMD, one of NASA’s four directorates, sponsors scientific research and develops and deploys satellites and probes in collaboration with NASA’s partners around the world who also need a view from and into space.1 It seeks to understand the origins, evolution, and destiny of the universe and the strange phenomena that shape it. Included in SMD goals are to understand the following:

  • The nature of life in the universe and what kinds of life may exist beyond Earth;

  • The solar system, both scientifically and in preparation for human exploration;

  • The Sun–Earth system, changes to the system, and the consequences for life on Earth;

  • The birth of the universe, the edges of space and time near black holes, and the darkest space, between galaxies; and

  • The relationship between the smallest subatomic particles and the vast expanse of the cosmos.

The SMD sponsors space science and Earth research, which both enable and are enabled by NASA’s mainline space exploration activities. Included in these fundamental research activities are the following:

  • Understanding the history of Mars and the formation of the solar system;

  • The search for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other stars; and

  • Support for the safety of robotic and human exploration of space by predicting potentially harmful conditions in space, such as space radiation.

Responsibility for the defining, planning, and overseeing of NASA space and Earth science goals lies in the four divisions of the SMD, which have the following objectives:

  • Earth science. Study planet Earth from space to advance scientific understanding of it and to help meet societal needs;

  • Planetary science. Advance the scientific knowledge of the origin and history of the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere, hazards faced by humans as they explore space, and the resources that they present;

  • Heliophysics. Understand the Sun and its effects on Earth and the solar system; and

1

See NASA, Science Plan: For NASA’s Science Mission Directorate 2007–2016, available at http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/03/31/Science_Plan_07.pdf.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
  • Astrophysics. Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets.

Fundamental research on profound science questions using space-based observatories and related assets is the hallmark of all four of the scientific areas identified above. In planning the future science programs for each of these disciplines, NASA works to implement the priorities defined by the NRC in its decadal surveys and other reports. These reports represent the consensus of the nation’s science communities in their respective disciplines. Roadmaps in each of the four science areas are then developed to show the pathways for implementing the NRC-defined priorities. NASA, working with the broad scientific community and in response to national initiatives and the NRC decadal surveys, creates a set of space and Earth science questions to be answered by future missions.

The activities to address these questions and objectives range from basic and applied research to contribute to the understanding of the scientific challenges, the development of technology to enable new capabilities, space mission development to acquire the vital new data, and supporting science and infrastructure systems to ensure the delivery of high-value scientific results to the scientific community and the general public.

Fundamental research develops the pioneering theories, techniques, and technologies that result in missions. Such research, which is funded internally at NASA through a series of IRAD projects and through internal and external annual solicitations such as ROSES, enables an exploration of innovative concepts in sufficient depth to determine whether they are ready for incorporation into space missions. Examples of the types of basic and applied research and supporting technology development sponsored by IRAD and ROSES include these:

  • Concepts for future space missions;

  • Theory, modeling, and analysis of mission science data;

  • Experimental techniques suitable for future space missions;

  • Aircraft, stratospheric balloon, and suborbital rocket investigations; and

  • Techniques for the laboratory analysis of extraterrestrial samples returned by spacecraft.

The results of the research and analysis inform and guide the scientific trade-offs and other choices that are made as missions are put together. Sponsored researchers guide the operation of robotic missions, selecting targets for observation or sampling. Once a NASA science mission launches and begins returning data, the first goal of the analysis programs is to maximize the scientific return. The new information is analyzed to advance understanding across the breadth of NASA science. Research and analysis funds are used to transform the returned data into new knowledge that may be able to answer the strategic space and Earth science questions raised by the scientific communities. Researchers publish their results in the open scientific literature. NASA also funds the archiving and distribution of these scientific data.

A very limited amount of space research is also funded from the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) through another directorate, ESMD. Examples of this basic research include cryogenic fluid management, green propulsion, energy storage, lunar dust, and in situ resource utilization (ISRU)—all of them techniques to enable humans to live off the land. As NASA’s goals have become centered on missions with timescales that in many cases are too short to benefit from basic research, the funding for basic research in space propulsion and its associated facilities and equipment has been significantly reduced. One notable remaining program is the integrated high-payoff rocket propulsion technology program, which does not, however, include any TRL 1-3 research. Virtually all space propulsion work now is developmental work. As discussed in the recent Assessment of U.S. Space Launch Vehicle Production Capacity by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the paucity of

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

propulsion R&D limits our nation’s ability to identify potential breakthroughs in propulsion and to retain and attract research personnel.2

Another segment of space research with lower levels of technology readiness is gravity-dependent physical science phenomena. This work was once conducted in the Microgravity Research Program and the Life Sciences Program. A limited amount of research funded through ETDP focuses on fire safety, life support, and power. Because Congress has mandated that 15 percent of research not be related to exploration, a limited number of other research programs have been reinstated.3

NASA cannot accomplish its mission and vision without a healthy and stable effort in fundamental research in the space and Earth sciences. Achieving NASA’s objectives requires a strong scientific and technical community over the long term to envision, develop, and deploy space missions and to apply results from those missions for the benefit of society. From concept development to selection, to mission implementation, to data analysis and reporting can easily take longer than a decade and in many cases as long as a professional lifetime. It is critical to support the space and Earth science community in the United States at universities, government facilities, and industrial laboratories by providing the necessary equipment, facilities, and support services. The key relationship between funding support and NASA’s success was of utmost concern to the committee as it began its visits to the various NASA centers.

GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

Overview of GSFC

GSFC is a large NASA space and Earth research center in Greenbelt, Maryland. It was established as NASA’s first spaceflight center on May 1, 1959, less than a year after the formation of NASA itself. GSFC employs approximately 3,200 civil servants and 5,400 contractors. It is named in recognition of Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945), the pioneer of modern rocket propulsion in the United States.

NASA describes GSFC’s mission as follows: “… to expand knowledge of the Earth and its environment, the solar system and the universe through observations from space. To assure that our nation maintains leadership in this endeavor, we are committed to excellence in scientific investigation, in the development and operation of space systems and in the advancement of essential technologies.”4 In fulfilling its mission, GSFC has developed and launched nearly 300 missions (satellites and primary instruments) that have studied Earth, the Sun, the planets, asteroids and comets, the interplanetary medium, and the universe. GSFC is the largest organization of scientists and engineers in the United States dedicated to this mission. More than 60 percent of the center’s personnel are scientists and engineers.

There are five main facilities operating under the director of GSFC: the main facility at Greenbelt, Maryland; the Wallops Flight Facility at Wallops Island, Virginia; the Independent Verification Facility in Fairmont, West Virginia; the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City; and the White Sands Ground Station in White Sands, New Mexico.

The main facility at GSFC occupies 130 acres of a total land area of 1,270 acres. The gross building square footage is over 3.3 million ft2, used for research, development, office space, and utilities. In addition, there are 21 government-owned and -leased trailers for housing personnel and storing equipment. There are 64 constructed buildings on the main facility property and 10 adjunct areas that

2

Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assessment of U.S. Space Launch Vehicle Engine Production Capacity, Washington, D.C., December 22, 2009, pp. 13-14.

3

See the ISS Research Project Web site at http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/Advanced/ISSResearch/.

4

See the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Goddard’s Mission,” at http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/about_mission.html.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

include an antenna range, a satellite tracking station, utilities, and several observatories and magnetic test sites. GSFC’s management regards 20 of its 33 main buildings as critical to its operations.

GSFC’s operations are organized around three center-based directorates, which report directly to the center’s management, but only the last of which is highly relevant to the committee’s present work: the Flight Projects Directorate, the Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate, and the Science and Exploration Directorate (SED). The GSFC Web site says that “missions are the lifeblood of the Goddard Space Flight Center.”5 GSFC is currently involved in 42 operating missions and has funding for 14 planned missions, which are discussed at http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/missions/index.html.

Because, as mentioned above, two of the three directorates had very few low-TRL researchers, laboratories, or other activities, the committee made no visits to their facilities or program areas. Thus, the focus was almost entirely on the low-TRL basic research activities associated with the SED at GSFC.

GSFC’s Science and Exploration Directorate

About one-sixth of GSFC’s total budget of $3.1 billion goes to the SED. The permanent staff includes 525 civil servants, of whom 350 are scientists. At any one time, there are also approximately 350 visiting university faculty, staff, and other visitors, 350 support service contractors, 80 collocated engineers, and about 120 summer students and interns.

At the present time, the SED facility is in eight main buildings covering 425,000 ft2. The committee was also told that a new building, the Exploration Science Building, is opening, and that it will house many older SED laboratories and have about 50 new, discrete science laboratories.

The SED goals for its research laboratories include the following:6

  • An aggressive hiring plan,

  • Hands-on experimental and instrumental capabilities across the domains covered by SED,

  • A cohesive plan for the collocation of synergistic laboratories and groups,

  • Improvements in laboratory safety, and

  • Improvements to management’s sensitivity to work issues.

SED management7 said that it is committed to supporting NASA’s entire mission life cycle, which includes (1) research and development, (2) participation in flight missions and instrument design and operations, and (3) data analysis, archiving, and distribution. At the present time, SED management believes that it needs to strengthen its efforts relative to the second item.

SED activities in various laboratories vary in TRL over time, depending on funds available for basic research and, when they are limited, moving personnel to higher-TRL projects. Overall, SED management says that it would like to carry out a full range of TRL work, with an emphasis on flight project work. It also believes that low-TRL work benefits substantially from laboratory infrastructure developed to support higher-TRL and flight project work. In addition, it said that the overall funding, full-cost management, and other institutional issues facing GSFC are disproportionately impacting its low-TRL capabilities.

In the past, SED’s funding of basic research and associated infrastructure through GSFC funds contributed much to the center’s scientific and technological reputation. However, over the past 4 years the funding for basic research has been reduced, making it increasingly difficult to sustain low-TRL

5

See www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index_flash.html.

6

Mitch Brown, SED Deputy Director for Planning and Business Management, “Sciences and Exploration Directorate: NRC Laboratory Capability Assessment,” presentation to the committee, September 9, 2009.

7

Braulio Ramon, GSFC Facilities Planning Office Head, “GSFC Facilities Master Plan/Planning Process,” presentation to the committee, September 8, 2009.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

facilities, salaries, and instrumentation. For example, SED’s management told the committee that to remain competitive in ROSES competitions (discussed later), requests for funding for general laboratory enhancement are now omitted from their proposals. Large laboratories supporting multiple users are impacted, especially when no one user can afford the fees to maintain a facility. Moreover, the necessity to bid at a bare minimum level to increase the probability of a win eliminates potential opportunities to benefit a larger community of users. Finally, the committee was told that constrained operations funding under the CM&O budget is impacting daily operations and the SED’s ability to support changing mission requirements. One particularly difficult fact is that CM&O funds are sufficient to cover only 25 percent of SED’s annual technical equipment requirements (for all TRLs).

The committee was also told that creating new laboratories to pursue new research areas is a very important need at GSFC. This is a very typical low-TRL activity of great importance to future flight programs and the ability of the center to attract high-quality technical talent. SED management told the committee that most of the ROSES funding opportunities available to the center are small awards ($100,000 to $200,000) that are insufficient for a new laboratory leader’s salary, let alone that of the research team and the necessary procurements, including specialized laboratory equipment.

To secure adequate funds, the committee was told, scientists must write and submit multiple proposals every year, but they do not have enough B&P funding from the center to do this. (Most of such proposals are directed to specific NASA missions or to ROSES.) The committee was told that a significant amount of proposal writing is being done on staff members’ personal time. Some staff that work in basic research told the committee that they must spend 30 to 50 percent or more of their time writing proposals to meet equipment needs and salary funding commitments. Such a heavy investment of time is far beyond the norm for faculty at U.S. research universities. In the long run, such a loss of time by low-TRL researchers will have serious consequences for programs depending on it.

The situation facing the development of new laboratories at GSFC is particularly difficult in the currently poor climate for low-TRL funding. The committee was told that only very rarely could a new activity compete with that of research teams from universities and institutes outside NASA that already have a laboratory capability (space, infrastructure support, and technical equipment) in place. On top of all of this, the committee was told that NASA personnel, unlike their university competitors, are not permitted to apply for funds at other government agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), DOE, or the National Institutes of Health. Thus, low-TRL activities of importance to GSFC and NASA are increasingly difficult to put together.

GSFC Budget Support

Funds for GSFC Earth and space science operations come from NASA Headquarters. There are three key operating budget accounts at GSFC: CM&O, NASA mission funds from SMD and ESMD, and a separate CoF account disbursed by NASA Headquarters, which enables the construction of buildings at GSFC.

Figure 5.1 shows the lines of budget authority and flow of these funds as these relate to decision makers at NASA Headquarters and GSFC. The SMD and ESMD at NASA Headquarters make decisions and provide funding for NASA science and exploration missions. Decisions affecting these mission activities pass directly to GSFC mission project offices, bypassing the general management controls of the GSFC director. Funding for internal scientific and technical operations as well as for CoF comes to GSFC’s Office of the Director by way of budgets and allocations approved at NASA Headquarters by NASA’s associate administrator. These activities and funds are under the direct control of the GSFC director. Some of the CM&O funds are designated for center maintenance and operations. They support the long-range objectives and needs of GSFC, as well as the special needs of low-TRL research. CoF funds, also under the control of the center director, impact low-TRL research insofar as they support facilities used in this type of work.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
FIGURE 5.1 Sources of funding for Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) scientific research. Science Mission Directorate and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate funds flow directly to mission projects, while other GSFC science programs and overall operations are provided by the GSFC Office of the Director with funds that originate from NASA’s associate administrator.

FIGURE 5.1 Sources of funding for Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) scientific research. Science Mission Directorate and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate funds flow directly to mission projects, while other GSFC science programs and overall operations are provided by the GSFC Office of the Director with funds that originate from NASA’s associate administrator.

The dual lines of authority shown in Figure 5.1 create a complexity for sustaining the low-TRL research infrastructure at GSFC. On the one hand, two major NASA Headquarters mission directorates (SMD and ESMD) are the main source of funds for most of the GSFC SED projects. However, most missions designate only a small amount of funding for low-TRL research. Thus, the long-range scientific skills and facilities that help create new missions depend on GSFC CM&O funds as well as competitive awards to individual researchers from the NASA Headquarters SMD and ESMD. This is a very delicate situation, especially since the director of GSFC remains responsible for funding for the center’s civil service staff base. Table 5.1 gives GSFC’s 2009 revenues for some of the expenditures mentioned in Figure 5.1.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

TABLE 5.1 Revenue for Goddard Space Flight Center for FY 2009

Source

FY 2009 ($ million)

Total revenue

3,138

SMD and ESMD

523

CM&O, NASA Headquarters

358

CoF, NASA Headquarters

17.3

NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix F.

SOURCE: Presentations to the committee during its visit to GSFC.

Funds Available for Low-TRL Research at GSFC

Table 5.2 shows allocations for the past 5 years directly related to the principal sources for support of low-TRL research at GSFC. The first four rows give funding from the CM&O budget of the center given in the third row of Table 5.1. The last row (ROSES) gives the total funding of individual GSFC investigator proposals by the SMD of NASA Headquarters.

Before discussing the elements of Table 5.2, an important caveat needs to be noted: the data in the first three rows are based on estimates provided by GSFC managers, who said that they were unable to track expenditures by TRL. However, GSFC account managers say that they have a “working understanding” of which expenditures are related to early-TRL work, and this understanding was a basis for the numbers in Table 5.2. In addition, GSFC managers said that investments in physical infrastructure were excluded because all GSFC laboratories are dedicated to broad ranges of TRL research, and the cost attributable to low-TRL work is likely to be very small.

TABLE 5.2 Goddard Space Flight Center Low-TRL Research Funding Allocations for FY 2005 Through FY 2009

 

Fiscal Year Funding ($000)

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Bid and Proposal funding for low-TRL research

419

431

444

457

471

Independent research and development (IRAD) funds

1,508

1,315

2,884

3,432

3,949

Director’s discretionary fund (DDF)

2,804

2,270

Total IRAD and DDF

4,312

3,585

2,884

3,432

3,949

Technical equipment

63

69

67

69

70

Research Opportunities for Space and Earth Sciences funding for low-TRL research

1,687

1,770

1,594

1,729

1,655

NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix F.

SOURCE: GSFC Management, “GSFC Response to the NRC Laboratory Assessment Committee Request for Additional Data,” provided on December 17, 2009.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

Another caveat with respect to Table 5.2 is that funding for low-TRL research activities that pertain to flight projects (missions) has been omitted, because flight projects invest principally in higher (>4)-TRL work. Exceptions may occur when problems must be solved to ensure project success. However, GSFC management says such events are rare and the associated costs are not tracked. The sources of low-TRL funding at GSFC given in Table 5.2 are in five categories:

  • GSFC bid and proposal funds are used to support the preparation of proposals in response to NASA competitive announcements, including the development of instrument and mission concepts, cost estimates, and documentation. Only a small fraction of GSFC’s B&P resources support TRL 1-3 efforts. GSFC managers said that virtually all of the funds listed in Table 5.2 are for preparation of GSFC SMD ROSES.

  • Independent research and development funds, which are awarded to proposals submitted by GSFC researchers to GSFC management, derive from the GSFC’s CM&O account. The committee was told that about 20 to 30 1-year, Phase A awards of $100,000 to $200,000 are made each year to GSFC personnel for low-TRL work. In addition, a down-selection from the previous year’s awards is made for Phase B work. GSFC’s total IRAD account is significantly larger than the account for low-TRL research alone.

  • A director’s discretionary fund existed through 2006 for meritorious proposals selected by the GSFC’s top management. It was discontinued in 2007, but the IRAD fund was doubled in that year.

  • Technical equipment includes all investments to maintain, operate, repair, upgrade, or provide new capability for basic (low-TRL) research in the four directorates at GSFC’s Greenbelt and Wallops Island facilities.

  • Research Opportunities for Space and Earth Sciences encompasses all of the funding from the competitive selection of GSFC researcher proposals in specific scientific disciplines and is sponsored by the SMD at NASA Headquarters. More than 4,000 proposals are made to ROSES each year by NASA researchers as well as those at many U.S. universities and research institutes. The overall success rate for ROSES proposals varies from year to year and from discipline to discipline. It is noted that more than one-quarter of the funds available for low-TRL research at GSFC are accounted for by awards to individuals and small groups led by low-TRL PIs.

Table 5.3 assesses the relevance of ROSES awards to later low-TRL research at GSFC. The second column of this table gives the number of SMD program solicitations for each year between 2003 and 2009. In 2008, for example, 65 such opportunities were provided for competition across all U.S. space and Earth science researchers in universities, institutes, NASA centers, and private companies. The third column gives the total number of new proposals received by NASA Headquarters. In the period FY 2004 through FY 2008, approximately 4,300 proposals were received each year, including new proposals and old, continuing activities. A single successful ROSES proposal, renewable annually, often provides funds for multiple years.

The number of new proposals selected in a given year is shown in the fourth column. From FY 2003 through FY 2008, the number selected was between 1,200 and about 1,400. The last column shows the overall success rates for new activities, which varies from year to year, from between 27 to 34 percent. Success rates for specific disciplines can vary significantly from this average. NASA makes public the yearly funding for only a few of its programs. Most awards range from $100,000 to $300,000, depending on the SMD need for the research and size of effort. A majority of successful proposals are rated as excellent.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

TABLE 5.3 Research Opportunities for Space and Earth Sciences Awards, FY 2003 to FY 2009

Fiscal Year

Solicitations

Proposal Received

New Selections

Success Rate (%)

2003

37

3,523

1,209

34

2004

46

4,315

1,376

32

2005

58

4,251

1,225

29

2006

54

4,315

1,376

32

2007

68

4,298

1,428

33

2008

65

4,203

1,293

31

2009 (Partial)

11

714

192

27

SOURCE: Science Mission Directorate ROSES Web site at http://nasascience.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-stats/grant-stats-archive.

GSFC researchers told the committee that they had two concerns about ROSES. First, much of the work being funded is related to SMD space and Earth science missions, making it difficult for non-mission-directed, low-TRL researchers to be successful in the competitions. Second, because NASA employees may not compete for other federal funds to support their activities, ROSES, which is open to researchers from all types of institutions, offers too little reward relative to the demand of all NASA centers for significant, non-center salary offsets. Unfortunately, because the data provided by SMD gives no information about the success rate of NASA researchers, it is difficult to determine if the ROSES process inadvertently discriminates against NASA support of low-TRL researchers. GSFC low-TRL researchers also say that it is very difficult to write a successful proposal when that proposal includes requests for equipment, since total cost is one of the factors in the ROSES selection process. Thus, NASA personnel find it difficult to create research units that require new equipment.

Returning to Table 5.2, GSFC managers told the committee that B&P funds are used almost entirely for writing proposals for NASA’s ROSES competitions, almost never for writing proposals for the development of new technologies or instruments.

The committee notes that since 2005, the total funding for low-level TRL research from IRAD and center director-discretionary funds (DDF) combined has declined by about 8 percent in real-year dollars. Furthermore, the dollar yield from GSFC B&P funds spent for ROSES—that is, dollars won in competitions relative to dollars spent in B&P activities—ranged from $4.01 in FY 2005 to $3.5 in FY 2009, a decline of 15 percent over 5 years.

GSFC Environment for Basic Research

In assessing the overall suitability of the GSFC work environment for basic research (TRL 1 to 3), the committee notes that the following factors influence the hiring, retention, and performance of GSFC’s permanent civil service research staff; these are the highly trained personnel who direct and sustain the core technical competencies of the center:

  • Funding of salaries and benefits,

  • Availability and quality of specialized, supporting technical equipment, and

  • Adequacy of laboratory and office facilities.

Each factor is discussed below.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

Funding

Salaries and Benefits

The permanent staff of the GSFC civil service is paid for its work according to the individual’s skills and time in service. However, this committee heard that GSFC management is unable to guarantee center funding for the salaries of scientists engaged solely in basic research (TRL 1-3). Instead, all low-TRL workers need to find additional sources of funding for their salaries, either through work on specific missions, through successful competition for funding from the sources described in Table 5.3, or through center overhead funds if no other source is found. It is important to note that the committee was told that there has never been an instance when employees have not been paid; centers are required to find other funding sources for scientists whose competitive wins are insufficient to cover their salaries.

Basic research staff told the committee that many of them have significant difficulties in securing adequate funding from these sources, not only for themselves but also for their support staff and purchases of essential technical equipment. As mentioned earlier, low-TRL research staff say that more than 30 percent and sometimes 50 percent of their time at work is spent preparing multiple, repetitive proposals to cover their project costs as well as to remain fully salaried and active in their basic research fields. This effort significantly reduces the time that they can spend on their basic research programs, especially in comparison with university faculty and research staff.

Technical Equipment

The technical equipment needed by the basic research staff must be purchased and maintained, especially investment in new equipment for the laboratories at GSFC and its Wallops Flight Facility. The three categories of annual equipment investments discussed below have been identified.


General-Purpose Technical Equipment. General-purpose technical equipment funding provides for the acquisition of general-purpose laboratory equipment supporting GSFC’s IRAD programs. There are five main subcategories here: maintenance, operations, repair and replacement, upgrade, and strategic. The strategic subcategory includes all equipment added to create a new capability in a laboratory. Overall, the FY 2009 GSFC allocation to general-purpose technical equipment for all of its research activities was $6.4 million. The allocations are given in Table 5.4.

The committee notes that more than 75 percent of the GSFC budget for technical equipment is for operations. Investments in long-term projects, which are the source of many low-TRL advances, appear to be of secondary concern. The committee was also informed that the total annual unfunded technical equipment projects at GSFC are between $2 million and $3 million each year.

GSFC funding for general-purpose technical equipment related to low-TRL activities is not precisely known to senior management, because low-TRL expenditures are not accurately accounted for. However, GSFC managers estimate that from FY 2005 through FY 2009, the low-TRL program allocations for technical equipment were $63,000 and $70,000. Since there are more than 30 laboratories at GSFC and Wallops Island conducting some form of low-TRL research, the committee concludes that there is grossly inadequate technical equipment funding for the pursuit of low-TRL research activities. Such low levels of funding are a clear danger signal relative to the priority of low-TRL research at GSFC. It also helps to explain the difficulty that GSFC finds in establishing and operating low-TRL research laboratories in terms of retention of permanent staff and postdoctoral staff.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

TABLE 5.4 Goddard Space Flight Center Expenditures for Technical Equipment, FY 2009 (thousands of dollars)

Subcategory

Allocation

Maintenance

2,100

Operations

1,200

Repair and replacement

1,500

Upgrade

400

Strategic

1,200

SOURCE: K. Flynn, Deputy Director for Planning and Management, GSFC, “Technical Equipment Overview for NRC,” presentation to the committee, September 9, 2009.

Technical Facility Restoration. Funds for technical facility restoration (TFR) are allocated separately from the funds for the technical equipment itself. This category includes restoration and/or modernization of existing capabilities—that is, “big-ticket assets” whose acquisition and installation are meant to last for many years. Funding for TFR at GSFC is budgeted at approximately $500,000 every year. Unfunded technical facility restoration projects are said to be $2 million to $3 million each year, according to management. Investments in this category are mainly at TRLs of greater than 3. However, the committee was told by individual researchers that to move forward into new types of essential basic research areas, the facility must be renovated before equipment can be added or new activities can take place. While mission funding is available in some cases, this lack of GSFC funding hinders the long-range evolution of basic research programs at the center.


Recertification Program. Recertification Program funding is allocated for recertification associated with three types of equipment: (1) lifting devices and equipment, (2) pressure vessels and pressure systems, and (3) mobile aerial platforms and critical jacks. Approximately $2.4 million has been allocated annually in these areas, with annual unfunded requests of about $500,000. In FY 2009 SMD gave this program additional direct flight project funding of $900,000 for the recertification of this equipment, which is mainly for flight project integration and testing at TRLs greater than 3.

Laboratory and Office Facilities for Basic Research

Advances in basic research require fully equipped modern laboratory space as well as supporting building and suitable infrastructure. At the present time, there are more than 30 laboratories at GSFC and the Wallops Island Flight Facility in at least 12 separate buildings. The committee was told about the CRV, DM, and the FCI for each of these buildings. The estimated CRV for the low-TRL research buildings is $580.2 million, and the DM is $3.59 million. The average FCI is 3.7 for GSFC buildings and 4.67 for Wallops Island buildings.8

The FY 2009 maintenance expense of $18.5 million gives a ratio of maintenance costs per unit of CRV of 3.1 percent per year, which is normal range for technical facilities. The inverse of this percentage gives an annual estimated lifetime of about 31 years, a reasonable lifetime for such facilities.

In presentations to the committee, GSFC managers discussed anticipated facility improvements over the next 3 years. The plans for FY 2010 include $38.5 million for CoF projects, $3.6 million for an environmentally modern demonstration project, $1.02 million for modifications and rehabilitation to

8

Information provided by Frank Bellinger, NASA Headquarters.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

bring the facility into safety/building compliance with codes, and $1.5 million for institutional construction projects, such as offices and supporting services.

Finally, there is an established, accepted way at GSFC to determine whether a project is to be funded by GSFC CM&O or by NASA CoF funds. Following NASA-wide procedures described earlier in this report, calls for proposals, various reviews, and evaluation of priorities, and projects costing less than $1 million go through the CM&O budget selection process, while more expensive projects are sent to GSFC senior management to solicit CoF funds from NASA Headquarters.

GSFC Summary

GSFC is a national resource for space research, leading the development and operation of important space experiments and observatories that have had an enormous impact on astrophysics, cosmology, and the Earth and planetary sciences. Yet, support for the center’s basic research capabilities (equipment, travel, salaries, support staff) is clearly under stress, and the current emphasis on space missions and exploration at the expense of basic space-related research will soon impair GSFC’s ability to serve as the foundation for new, high-quality missions and to produce the requisite technologies, instruments, and capabilities.

The CM&O funds allocated for acquiring technical equipment are low relative to what GSFC needs for a strong and forward-looking basic research program. The center is aware of this problem and attempts to cope with it by requiring cost sharing with direct-funded projects (missions). The older laboratories visited by the committee generally have instruments on a par with those at some universities, but the relatively small GSFC budgets for technical equipment and the restoration of technical facilities are inconsistent with the center’s role as one of the nation’s leading Earth and space science research organizations and the need for national scientific and technical leadership. Researchers said on several occasions that they depend on access to equipment and facilities developed to support flight projects. Such access is helpful but is no substitute for dedicated facilities and equipment that is tailored specifically to the needs of the researcher.

Finally, despite the abundance of information on GSFC’s funding of facilities and equipment, it was difficult to obtain information about the impact of these expenditures on the TRL 1-3 research at GSFC owing to the complexities of the center’s accounting system. Nevertheless, it appears that the basic research facilities there receive less funding than they need to keep up with the instrumentation expected for a national institution. Furthermore, the funds available to the GSFC director for facilities and equipment do not allow the center to embark on the broad range of basic research needed to ensure the center’s long-term ability to support major science missions. Mixing GSFC and mission funds to support basic research activities seems essential in the short term, but in the long term this dependence will degrade the center’s essential capabilities.

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

Mission and Organization

JPL formulates and executes flight projects in the four divisions—Earth Science, Planetary Science, Heliophysics, and Astrophysics—of NASA’s SMD. It maintains strong in-house science and technology capabilities to support its current and future flight projects.

JPL is an operating division of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). It is managed by Caltech with Caltech employees and functions as a FFRDC under NASA sponsorship and ownership. JPL is a leading R&D capability that supports NASA programs and vital national defense and civil programs. There is strong collaboration between JPL and Caltech in many areas of science, technology, and engineering. Caltech often initiates and strengthens JPL TRL 1-3 research. The JPL line

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

organization comprises five program/project directorates: Solar System Exploration, Mars Exploration, Astronomy and Physics, Earth Science and Technology, and Interplanetary Network. Other technical divisions are under JPL’s Engineering and Science Directorate.

Strategic Technologies

JPL’s approach to the support of TRL 1-3 research is through the management of its strategic technologies, documented in the laboratory’s Strategic Technology Directions 2009. Many of the facilities, selected by center management for the committee’s tour, are closely aligned with the goals and objectives in that document. Some laboratories, such as the microdevices laboratory, receive significant institutional support from JPL. Smaller focused science laboratories receive little or no institutional support and survive by researchers winning multiple small-dollar-value grants.

The following laboratories perform crosscutting research and directly support strategic technologies:

  • Microdevices laboratory. A unique, world-class laboratory dedicated to space microelectronics. It is housed in a 74,570 ft2 advanced facility and seen as a cornerstone of JPL’s strategic technologies.

  • Formation flying technology laboratory. Software and hardware for multispacecraft missions where extreme precision in station keeping and coalignment are required to execute the mission.

  • Precision environmental test enclosure. Large, deployable aperture systems.

  • Electric propulsion facility.

  • Frequency standards and quantum instruments laboratories. Instruments for precise space clocks and ground clocks.

Other laboratories support solar system exploration, Earth science, and astrophysics:

  • Spectroscopy and rasping bunker. Demonstrate the capability to perform scientific measurements on the surface of Venus.

  • Mars yard. Simulate the Mars surface to allow for the development of rovers.

  • Far infrared detector laboratory.

  • Ice spectroscopy laboratory. Evolution of icy bodies in the solar system and aerosol chemistry in Earth’s atmosphere.

  • Isotope cosmochemistry laboratory. Use of mass spectrometry to study the isotope chemistry of extraterrestrial (lunar and meteoritic) samples.

  • Chemical kinetics and photochemistry laboratory. Elementary chemical reactions important in Earth and planetary atmospheres.

  • Fundamental physics and technology laboratory. Collision processes involving fast neutrons and highly charged ions with application to astrophysics and planetary missions.

Flight Projects

JPL projects focused on Earth science currently include Earth-observing missions. JPL is responsible for the integrity and analysis of the data that return to Earth from various instruments on NASA’s A-Train constellation of Earth-observing spacecraft. Many of these crafts have onboard instruments that remotely observe Earth’s atmosphere using various techniques.

JPL is also currently working on nine solar system missions. Planetary science is carried out in the laboratory, from astronomical facilities throughout the world, and from spacecraft and landers. JPL

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

also has six astrophysics missions related to stars and galaxies.9 With respect to astrophysics research, JPL is focused on, among other things, developing new techniques to observe gravitational waves, observing magnetic fields and plasmas, modeling star and planet formation, and measuring atomic collisions in a laboratory setting.

Funding of Science at JPL

JPL’s annual budget is $1.6 billion. The intent at NASA Headquarters has been to maintain JPL with 5,000 employees. In the current environment, JPL must compete for new missions, many of which will be smaller than the Voyager, Galileo, and Cassini-class missions that have traditionally helped maintain institutional capabilities at JPL, including the science and technology laboratories. JPL’s ability to maintain its laboratory capabilities has been adversely affected by the erosion of its investment in TRL 1-3 research. JPL has no CM&O allocation from Headquarters and uses overhead to generate the approximately $100 million or so that it invests every year in IRAD, B&P, test equipment and facilities infrastructure management (TEFIM), test facilities, capital investments, computing, strategic hires, and business process improvements. Of the total, $5.5 million supports TRL 1-3 research. Table 5.5 estimates direct and internal investments in TRL 1-3 research at JPL from FY 2005 through FY 2009.

Technology Management

JPL maintains and monitors a set of strategic technologies. Managed by the chief technologist, they are deemed critical to JPL’s contribution to NASA’s science and exploration goals. They make a unique or distinguishing contribution, which requires overt JPL or NASA management.

In 2009, JPL updated and published Strategic Technology Directions 2009.10 The plan focuses on 10 areas directly associated with JPL’s exploration and science goals:

  • Large-aperture systems,

  • Detectors and instrument systems,

  • Advanced propulsion and power,

  • In situ planetary exploration systems,

  • Survivable systems for extreme environments,

  • Deep-space navigation,

  • Precision formation flying,

  • Deep-space communications,

  • Mission system software and avionics, and

  • Life-cycle integrated modeling and simulation.

Research Equipment and Facility Budgets

Fundamental science and engineering research brings about breakthrough missions. The laboratories that support that research must be supported over long time periods, because technology

9

Information is available at http://jpl.nasa.gov/missions/index.cfm.

10

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Strategic Technology Directions 2009, JPL Publication 400-1385, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., 2009, available at http://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/research/StTechDir/.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

development occurs over timescales that can be far greater than those needed to develop the missions. Currently, investment in infrastructure is limited, there is little ability to add new capabilities, and some maintenance is being deferred. In the face of these constraints, however, JPL has some unique and critical laboratories that are important for NASA’s scientific and technology missions, among them the following:

  • Microdevices laboratory,

  • Tunable-laser spectrometer laboratory,

  • Formation-flying technology laboratory,

  • Rover technology integration and test laboratory, and

  • Laboratory for technologies that facilitate observations of planets revolving about other stars.

The committee team visited these and other laboratories supporting TRL 1-3 research. Table 5.6 shows the money spent over the past 5 years at JPL for facilities and equipment used for fundamental science and engineering research. Scheduled facility replacement includes the replacement of project-related facilities and equipment but not routine maintenance, grounds keeping, and so on.

The age distribution of research equipment at JPL is as follows: 42 percent, more than 20 years; 11 percent, 10 to 20 years; 34 percent, 5 to 10 years; and 13 percent, 0 to 5 years.

JPL plans to spend $1 million per year for research equipment and facility improvements in fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012.

NASA independently ranked the FCI at JPL’s Oak Grove at 4.0 on a scale from 1 (nonfunctional) to 5 (excellent). This assessment is an average across the enterprise and does not necessarily reflect the condition of TRL 1-3 infrastructure.

JPL’s management process includes the TEFIM program for acquiring and supporting facility upgrades, equipment purchases, and the like. It is a mature process, widely accepted at JPL, that supports both research and flight projects. JPL also maintains a test equipment loan pool that contains over 6,000 instruments of more than 2,500 different makes and models and is valued at about $56 million. This pool provides general-purpose test equipment, ranging from basic meters and oscilloscopes to RF microwave equipment. Centralized management maximizes utilization and realizes economies of scale. Maintenance and calibration costs are borne by the loan pool so users need only consider usage costs in their budget. While total equipment costs are likely to be reduced with the introduction of a loan pool, well-maintained and calibrated equipment is critical to accurate measurements, and when equipment is loaned to mixed users, reliability and confidence may be lost and excessive recalibrations may be necessary.

One of the challenges that JPL faces is the aging of 20,000 pieces of equipment. The current average age is more than 11 years (JPL management believes that it should be 7 years). A $4 million investment would be required every year to meet this need, but the planned expenditures are only $1 million per year.

JPL provides institutional support to its research laboratories in the form of a machine shop and a cryogenics and specialty gases service center. About one-quarter of the machine shop usage is by the JPL research community.

JPL Summary

JPL has some key advantages over other NASA centers. As an FFRDC, its workforce is made up of Caltech employees, and it has close collaboration with Caltech, one of the premier academic institutions in the nation. Because JPL is an FFRDC and not a civil service laboratory, it has not experienced the repercussions from NASA’s transition to full-cost management. JPL’s science and technical staff members have always been required to direct-charge their salaries. However, by

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

agreement with NASA Headquarters, JPL is able to recover sufficient discretionary funds for IRAD, equipment purchases, and other discretionary investments, providing flexibility that some other centers may not have. Furthermore, many fundamental researchers cover some portion of their salary by participating in flight mission activities. This enables them to leverage small amounts of contract and grant money. This approach was evident in many of the laboratories that the committee visited, where some researchers have access to sophisticated facilities developed to support NASA flight missions and mission-driven R&D.

JPL executes large space and Earth science missions and has a relatively healthy funding base. However, it does face some challenges. Because JPL must compete for missions and its missions will probably become smaller, there will be challenges ahead in maintaining the JPL institutional base. The substantial erosion of the research and technology budgets at NASA has resulted in the loss of some JPL technologists because of a shortage of funds to support TRL 1-3 research. Moreover, researchers spend inordinate amounts of time (30 to 50 percent of their work time) writing proposals to secure funding to pay their own salaries and maintain their laboratory capabilities. The yield on proposals for NASA work appears to be small—for example, 20 proposals might result in one or two awards. Also, because the awards are relatively small, researchers seem to be seeking funds outside NASA, which will divert their attention from achieving NASA’s goals if the work done for others becomes too large. If funding for facilities must be recovered from occasional facility customers, the funding level will be volatile. In the past, some of the key capabilities were facility funded—that is, operating funds were from a central source.

In summary, the key challenge facing JPL with respect to TRL 1-3 research is the lack of basic technology funding in NASA. Restoration of the space technology investment would enhance JPL’s research productivity.

TABLE 5.5 Estimated Direct and Internal Investment Funding for TRL 1-3 Work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, FY 2005 Through FY 2009

Fundamental research ($ million)

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

FY 2009

ROSES

19.8

17.6

12.4

22.6

17.8

Earth science research and analysis

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

Earth instruments

8.0

4.9

2.8

13.0

8.0

Planetary and life detection

6.7

7.4

4.4

5.0

5.7

Astrophysics

3.2

3.2

3.2

2.7

2.0

Non-NASA

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.8

Project

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Other direct

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.2

1.1

Internal investment

5.4

5.5

5.4

5.4

5.5

Research

4.4

4.3

4.5

4.5

5.0

Facilities, laboratories, and equipment

1.0

1.2

0.9

0.9

0.5

Total

27.1

24.8

19.6

30.0

25.2

NOTE: All funding is awarded by open competition. Noncompetitive awards are not available in fundamental research at JPL. TRL, technology readiness level.

SOURCE: Jet Propulsion Laboratory presentation to the committee, November 9, 2009.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

TABLE 5.6 Expenditures at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for on Facilities and Equipment for Fundamental Science and Engineering, FY 2005 Through FY 2009

Expenditure ($ million)

FY 2005

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

FY 2009

New laboratory equipment

1.1

1.4

1.3

3.2

0.1

New facilities and major equipment upgrades

0

0

0.4

0.5

0.8

Scheduled facility replacement

3.5

3.8

3.9

3.7

4.5

SOURCE: Jet Propulsion Laboratory presentation to the committee, November 9, 2009.

AMES RESEARCH CENTER

Mission and Organization

ARC was established in 1939 as the second laboratory of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which became NASA in 1958. ARC is located at Moffett Field in Sunnyvale, California, now at the heart of Silicon Valley.

At first, ARC was an aeronautical research center whose efforts consisted of building increasingly sophisticated wind tunnels and research aircraft and studying theoretical aerodynamics. This aeronautical foundation allowed it to expand into areas such as computational fluid dynamics, simulation technology, air traffic management research, and tilt-rotor aircraft. As Silicon Valley grew up around it, ARC has become involved in other research areas, such as information technology. In information technology, ARC focuses on supercomputing, networking, and intelligent systems. In addition, it is involved in nanotechnology, fundamental space biology, biotechnology, thermal protection systems, and human factors research. It is the ancestral home and keystone institution for astrobiology (also referred to as exobiology), which asks these fundamental questions: How does life begin and evolve? Does life exist elsewhere in the universe? What is the future of life on Earth and beyond? ARC’s role in this fundamental life sciences research ties it to the NASA Vision: to improve life here, to extend life there and to find life beyond.

ARC currently employs approximately 1,280 civil servants and about the same number of on-site contractors. Half of its staff have a doctorate or a master’s degree (evenly split between the two), with 48 percent of them classified as engineers and 19 percent as scientists. The two main categories of scientist are computer scientists (32 percent) and physical scientists (29 percent). ARC is organized into 10 directorates:

  • Science Directorate,

  • Aeronautics Directorate,

  • Exploration Technology Directorate,

  • Programs and Projects Directorate,

  • Engineering Directorate,

  • Center Operations Directorate,

  • Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate,

  • Information Technology Directorate,

  • Human Capitol Directorate, and

  • New Ventures and Communications Directorate.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

ARC also runs two institutes, the NASA Lunar Science Institute and the NASA Astrobiology Institute, which supplement and extend NASA’s other efforts in these two fields. The statement of task for this report focused the committee on three of the ARC directorates: the Science Directorate, the Exploration Technology Directorate, and the Aeronautics Directorate. This section of Chapter 5 covers the first two, while Chapter 4 covered the aeronautics work.

ARC’s Science Directorate is further divided into three areas: Earth science, space science, and space biosciences. The first, Earth science, performs atmospheric science, studying phenomena such as climate change and cloud modeling and biospheric science (the carbon cycle and specific items such as fire and coral reefs), and developing airborne science technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicle technology, instrumentation, and small satellite mission concepts. Funding for the Earth science area at ARC is shown in Figure 5.2. The second area, space science research, carries out research into astrobiology and planetary sciences, with emphasis on lunar and small bodies, exoplanets, and astrophysics and astrochemistry. It works on advanced instrument design and supports the missions Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), Kepler, and Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS). Funding for space science research at ARC is shown in Figure 5.3. The third area, space biosciences, supports a number of programs: human research program, exploration life support, radiation and space biology (notably lunar dust characterization and toxicology) technology development; much of this research is implemented on the ISS. Space biosciences was significantly adversely affected in FY 2006, when the fundamental space biology program was cut to align agency resources with the Exploration Vision. Since then small gains have been made due to congressional augmentation. This is shown in Figure 5.4, which does not include funding for the Space Station Biological Research Project.

The Exploration Technology Directorate is split into four areas: intelligent systems, human system integration, entry systems technology, and advanced supercomputing. The intelligent systems area focuses on autonomous systems and robotics, collaborative and assistant systems, robust software, and discovery and system health diagnostics research. Human system integration integrates people into an overall space system, determining human performance requirements and standards and working on items such as vision, auditory, and haptic interfaces. Entry systems technology is focused on aerothermodynamics and thermal protection system materials using some ARC-unique facilities such as the Arc Jet Complex. The advanced supercomputing area performs high-fidelity physics modeling and advanced computer science research using one of the world’s fastest supercomputers. Some of these areas fall within the subject areas of both the science and aeronautics chapters of this report and are covered in both places.

Because NASA’s ETDP focuses on the near-term needs of the Constellation program,11 it has chosen to concentrate on advancing technologies at TRL 3 and above, toward TRL 6. That study found that NASA had in many areas essentially ended support for longer-term (TRL 1-2) technology research. So, because the focus of this report had already been set as TRL 1-3 research, much of what the Exploration Technology Directorate is working on at ARC was outside the scope of this study. In fact ARC reported that in the past 5 years, TRL 1-3 funding for ETDP has decreased approximately 85 percent, from $140 million to less than $20 million, as shown in Figure 5.5. The impact was especially pronounced and obvious in information technology, intelligent systems, robotics, and autonomy, where only a few years ago the NASA Computing, Information and Communications Technology Program, funded at $138 million, was judged by an independent NRC committee to have a very good research portfolio that supported NASA’s objectives.12 In fact, some technology areas were judged to be world-class by that earlier study, and all were in the three areas cut so drastically.

11

See National Research Council, A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008.

12

See National Research Council, An Assessment of NASA’s Pioneering Revolutionary Technology Program, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
FIGURE 5.2 Earth science research funding at Ames Research Center, FY 2004 to FY 2009. SOURCE: Ames Research Center presentation to the committee, December 2, 2009.

FIGURE 5.2 Earth science research funding at Ames Research Center, FY 2004 to FY 2009. SOURCE: Ames Research Center presentation to the committee, December 2, 2009.

FIGURE 5.3 Funding for space science research at Ames Research Center, FY 2004-2009. SOURCE: Ames Research Center presentation to the committee, December 2, 2009.

FIGURE 5.3 Funding for space science research at Ames Research Center, FY 2004-2009. SOURCE: Ames Research Center presentation to the committee, December 2, 2009.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
FIGURE 5.4 Funding for space bioscience research at Ames Research Center (in millions of dollars), FY 2004-2009. SOURCE: Ames Research Center presentation to the committee, December 2, 2009.

FIGURE 5.4 Funding for space bioscience research at Ames Research Center (in millions of dollars), FY 2004-2009. SOURCE: Ames Research Center presentation to the committee, December 2, 2009.

FIGURE 5.5 Funding for exploration technology research at Ames Research Center, FY 2004-2009. SOURCE: Ames Research Center presentation to the committee, December 2, 2009.

FIGURE 5.5 Funding for exploration technology research at Ames Research Center, FY 2004-2009. SOURCE: Ames Research Center presentation to the committee, December 2, 2009.

Summary of the ARC Visit

During the visit to ARC on December 2 and 3, 2009, committee members were given tours of various laboratories and facilities that supported the Science Directorate and the Exploration Technology Directorate. For Earth science, the atmospheric chemistry laboratory was toured and for space science, many astrophysics and astrobiology facilities were shown. For astrophysics, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) cluster and luminescence laboratory, the PAH infrared properties laboratory, the cosmic ices and organics laboratory, the ultraviolet-visible laboratory/cosmic simulation chamber, the lunar dust mitigation laboratory, the Ames coronagraph experiment laboratory, and the infrared detector laboratory were all viewed, and scientists working in those laboratories shared their thoughts on the state of NASA and how it affected their research efforts. For astrobiology, the organic biosignatures laboratory and the planetary mineralogy laboratory were both toured. The final group of science facilities

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

viewed was in the research area of space biosciences, where the biofuels and bionanotech laboratory, bone and signaling laboratory, and small model organisms laboratory were all visited. For the Exploration Technologies Directorate, the TPS materials development laboratory and the advanced diagnostic and prognostic laboratory were shown. The arc jet facility was toured by the aeronautics group and thus is covered in that section of the report, although space-related work is done at the arc jet facility as well. Researchers were candid during the whole visit and held a special session to speak with the committee members.

Overall ARC Assessment

Throughout the review of ARC, several common themes emerged that had also been heard during visits to other NASA centers. As was noted at other locations, changes in NASA’s management and accounting require NASA scientists to compete in what was described as a very challenging environment.

An example of the environment at NASA locations, especially at ARC, is the challenge that researchers face as they write more and more proposals to fewer and fewer opportunities with smaller and smaller award sizes (given the added burdens that full-cost management have brought). At ARC, scientists said that to their knowledge they were the only civil-servant scientists in the government who had to compete with external researchers for their salaries. Since typical grant values are now $100,000 to $200,000 each, and scientists typically ask for only 20 percent of their salary on each proposal, on average a researcher must win 5 proposals to be fully funded. With a good win rate being 1 in 3, a researcher must write 15 proposals a year. Younger researchers getting established could expect poorer success rates and would have to write even more proposals to support themselves, their laboratories, and their staff. Without institutional funds to support the cost of their organization’s operating expenses, laboratory equipment, laboratory personnel, and students (let alone their own salaries), all of these elements had to be obtained through competed funds. Full-cost management for laboratories performing low-TRL research jeopardizes the availability of these facilities for future development. Similar situations were seen at other NASA locations, Table 5.7 presents allocations of low-TRL research at ARC—ROSES awards, IRAD, and B&P expenditures. The DDF no longer exists. Similar to data presented above from GSFC and JPL, the table shows the significance of the ROSES awards for TRL 1-3 research.

Despite the frustration expressed over this challenging environment, the passion of all of the personnel was clear to the committee. Many of them persevere at NASA because of the highly specialized research that they can perform to support NASA’s unique mission needs. The researchers understand that NASA must try to do too many things with too small a budget, so they do not fear the tough choices that lie ahead even if they are affected directly. In fact one of the most senior and well-recognized researchers at ARC may have put it best when he said, “I would rather see NASA do three things well than 10 things poorly” as they risk doing when they spread their efforts too thinly.

TABLE 5.7 Funding for Low-TRL Research at Ames Research Center, FY 2007 Through FY 2009 ($ millions)

 

2007

2008

2009

ROSES (fundamental R&D)

$7.9

$6.7

$8.2

IRAD

$5.6

$10.4

$7.6

B&P

$0.4

$0.2

$0.6

DDF

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

Total

$13.9

$17.3

$16.4x

NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix F.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

Because NASA’s missions and projects in science and exploration have become increasingly reliant on near-term technologies (TRL 4 and higher), many fundamental areas at ARC have been negatively impacted, including low-TRL research in information science, nanotechnology, advanced computing, and TPS. NASA’s abandonment of fundamental space biology at ARC had significant effects for that research community and came at a time when the ISS was just reaching the point where it could have been a key facilitator of such research.

These changes in NASA investment in fundamental research have left several areas of research on “life support,” yet ARC maintains that they are needed if NASA is to sustain a long-term presence in space and develop lower-cost, more capable missions in the future. Examples given included early instrument development, nanotechnology, fundamental space biology, information technology, robotics/autonomy, and advanced TPS materials.

The requirements extend to long-term facilities and staffing. A shortage of stable funding for infrastructure upgrades and maintenance jeopardize the ability of an organization to keep its cutting edge. Hiring freezes hinder knowledge transfer to the next generation of researchers, engineers, and technicians to maintain the current state-of-the-art as well as advance it. The expertise and knowledge of retiring staff will take years to re-create, and many facilities are being operated to failure without proper maintenance and repair. A key example at ARC is the arc jet boiler, which is 60 years old and will take 4 years to replace. This facility is critical for both the robotic and human exploration missions that NASA is working on. In addition, the centrifuges and other major space biology facilities at ARC have already been mothballed due to a lack of funding.

When the committee toured the facilities, there were many instances of obsolete or inoperable equipment. This unfortunate state was explained by the difficulties of obtaining funds for equipment maintenance and upgrade through the current grant-funding process.

One specific challenge, as seen by ARC personnel, is to restore its status as a spaceflight center.13 NASA’s other two robotic spaceflight centers are GSFC and JPL. As was noted in both of those assessments, the lack of large strategic missions in the future is already a concern for GSFC and JPL, since their research efforts benefit from the residual infrastructure and staff that these efforts provide. ARC, which does not have any missions of this type (and without some major change is unlikely to get one any time soon), could expect its struggles to be even more pronounced than those of GSFC or JPL, making this objective difficult to achieve. As evidence to support this, following Kepler’s initial selection as a Discovery mission that was initiated at ARC, mission development was transferred back to JPL, and only recently, on December 16, 2009, was its operational management regained by ARC, after the mission had been successfully launched. Although Kepler is not even close in size to the large strategic missions that keep GSFC and JPL going, it is nonetheless ARC’s largest current mission, and the fact that ARC missed the opportunity to manage it during the development phase means that it missed out on the institutional support that a mission like this can provide.

ARC also has a large CRV of facilities, second only to that of the KSC (although the large CRV is partially compensated for by its many inactive facilities, like the famous Hangar One, as shown in Figure 3.3 in Chapter 3). In any case, ARC has a notably low CM&O budget as a percentage of the total NASA CM&O budget, as shown in Table 3.4 in Chapter 3. Of the NASA facilities that have these low percentages, only ARC is a research center, so its research equipment and support functions have been adversely affected. The gap is especially noticeable between ARC and GSFC (data are not available for JPL owing to its FFRDC status, but the trend is expected to be similar), against which ARC often competes for funds and personnel.

One ARC strategy that should be commended is the establishment of the NASA Research Park to offset the austere budget environment. By developing partnerships with academic, nonprofit, and industry partners, it is creating a collaborative environment to stimulate innovation and education while also utilizing its real estate and facilities through enhanced use leases. Notable partners at ARC include

13

NASA, “Ames Research Center at a Glance,” Ames Research Center brochure.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

Carnegie Mellon University; the University of California, Santa Cruz; Airship Ventures; the UAV Collaborative; Google; and Tesla Motors. This seems like an innovative method for ARC to tackle some of its infrastructure challenges.

With its location in Silicon Valley, ARC should naturally be NASA’s portal to commercial and university information technology research. Although some of this research has been world-class, it is now substantially less so. ARC also does some important and unique work in astrobiology that is fundamental to NASA’s overall mission. ARC’s work in space biology has also been a casualty of budget realignment, which is difficult to understand given that the ISS is now mature enough that it could provide important support to this research. Its critical work in TPS and its unique arc jet facility will be important for future NASA missions as well as commercial capabilities that will need to bring crew or cargo back from orbit. These highlighted capabilities are but a few that could be vulnerable without changing the ARC approach to fundamental research and to the maintenance of its laboratory facilities, equipment, and support services.

MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

The stated mission of MSFC is to “make possible human and scientific space exploration.” MSFC occupies 1,841 acres on Redstone Arsenal. MSFC also manages the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana. It has approximately 237 buildings that occupy 4.5 million ft2. MSFC has 38 laboratories and facilities that conduct TRL 1-3 research. Eight of those laboratories are located in non-NASA assets—namely, in a U.S. Army building and in the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC), which rents a building from the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Three members of the committee visited 12 of those facilities.14

MSFC has a workforce with more than 7,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, and business professionals; 38 percent of them are civil servants and 62 percent, contractor personnel.15 The NSSTC houses approximately 60 of those scientists and researchers. The Engineering Directorate has a large complement of the engineers and researchers.

The focus of work at MSFC is propulsion and transportation systems, life support systems, and Earth and space science spacecraft, systems, and operations. The MSFC approach is to transition the research developed at TRL 1-3 into maturing technologies that can bring a return on investment. It looks for applications that can move from research to development to flight. The basic research at MSFC is in propulsion, power, material and manufacturing development, structures, avionics, and instrumentation and sensors. The work in propulsion focuses on advanced chemical, solar, and nuclear propulsion. Beneath the umbrella of propulsion, research is also conducted in cryogenic fluid management for long-term storage and utilization. Research in nuclear systems and solar research is also ongoing. A larger focus is in the area of materials and manufacturing. The research involves materials in unique and extreme environments, including at high temperatures, composites, and ionic liquids, and studies of avionics advanced control architectures and computer advances. The instrument and sensor areas focus on optics, microfabrication in cooperation with the Army, and measurements for flight. The NSSTC focuses on basic space science for heliophysics, astrophysics, Earth climate research, and planetary/lunar research.

14

Deputy Manager, Advanced Concepts Office, MSFC, Presentation on MSFC Laboratory Capabilities to the committee, September 9, 2009; and Frank Bellinger, Director, Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division,

15

Deputy Manager, Advanced Concepts Office, MSFC, Presentation on MSFC Laboratory Capabilities to the committee, September 9, 2009.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

MSFC Funding of Space Science

Overall funding for MSFC comes from a variety of sources. In FY 2009 MSFC received $302.5 million in CM&O, as shown in Table 3.4 in Chapter 3. The total MSFC budget for FY 2009 was $2.528 billion, as reported in an e-mail from the MSFC deputy manager, Advanced Concepts Office, on January 20, 2010, so the CM&O was 12 percent of the total budget. The CM&O-funded B&P work in FY 2009 was $595,000, but it is unclear what percentage was spent on research activities that were only TRL 1-3. MSFC funds an IRAD program that it refers to as the Marshall Technology Investment Fund. In FY2010 the amount will be $2.4 million; in FY 2009 it was at $5.1 million, and it had been as high as $10 million in earlier years.16 Competition is fierce for this funding, which supports research in strategic technologies. Other sources of funding for basic research come in limited quantities from NASA Headquarters’ ROSES, ETDP, and the Innovative Partnership Program. Collaborative research is also conducted with DARPA, DOE, and the Department of Defense (DOD). And finally, a small amount of research is funded through reimbursable contracts.

In FY 2008, MSFC had just over $3 billion in CRV of all of its facilities, with an active CRV of approximately $2.8 billion (see Figure 3.4). For facilities located on the MSFC property that support TRL 1-3 research, the current CRV is just over $720 million. The DM on those facilities is $59 million, with an unweighted average facility condition index of 4.17 This corresponds to a rating of good. Building support and infrastructure for several other laboratories are provided by the University of Alabama and the U.S. Army. One building was completed in 2004 for $25 million with congressional funds earmarked for this purpose.

The equipment in the facilities appeared to the committee to be adequate. The NSSTC shares some costs for equipment with the university. MSFC does not spend CM&O funds for test equipment. Additionally, major programs fund equipment that can be used for both low- and high-TRL research.

Details of the MSFC Visit

The committee visited several laboratories that were identified as devoted to TRL 1-3 research. The High Energy Instrumentation Development Laboratory was working on deminiaturization of a scanning electron microscope and on x-ray optics for lunar instrumentation. The Dusty Plasma Laboratory has the unique capability of studying single grains of dust in a space environment. Both laboratories support research for NASA’s SMD. (Since the building that houses the NSSTC is rented, the evaluation did not include the building itself but rather the equipment and instruments within the building, which are the property of NASA.)

Several laboratories support advanced materials and manufacturing. These laboratories included research on the electrostatic levitator, innovative materials characterization, the high-temperature silicon carbide grid, and ISS materials science. Materials characterization is a unique facility for measuring high-temperature properties, surface tension, creep, and emissivity. One of the laboratories manufactures bulk materials and has equipment for sputtering and evaporating materials.

A small amount of basic research is being conducted for environmental control and life support systems. This research supports lunar spaceflight and is trying to develop regenerative processes to provide resources for astronauts. Future interplanetary flights will require many regenerative processes. The committee viewed two separate equipment stations that support processes such as the Sabatier and Bosch-Catalyst processes for recovering CO2 to produce oxygen.

16

Information from an e-mail received on January 20, 2010, from MSFC Deputy Manager, Advanced Concepts Office, and remarks by Todd May, Special Assistant to the Director, December 10, 2009.

17

Frank Bellinger, Director, Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, NASA Headquarters, “TRL 1-3 Building Report,” e-mail to the committee, December 4, 2009.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

Three laboratories were toured in the microfabrication facility. This facility is owned by the U.S. Army, and work by NASA is conducted under a memorandum of understanding whereby the equipment, instrumentation, and some support services are provided by MSFC. A magneto-optical trap is being studied as well for gyroscopic development to improve navigation and for investigating landing surfaces for stability. The microfabrication laboratory and the microfabrication integrated optics laboratory carry out research on etching and photolithography processes for various materials that can withstand harsh environments. This work is developing various sensors, including pressure sensors that will work in hydrazine, cryogenic sensors, and carbon nanotube sensors.

The committee also visited the materials research and technology facility at MSFC, where biological and organic processes are studied. One area of research in this facility is ISRU: The aim is to be able to “live off the land” by creating useful materials from the lunar regolith. A second endeavor is using ionic liquids to extract water from lunar regolith and then electrolyzing it. The third is working on the use of microwaves to do such extraction.

Finally, the committee reviewed the propulsion research and development laboratory. This facility houses a large number of individual laboratories, including a special laboratory space for propulsion research in the areas of solar thermal engines, high-power electric/plasma propulsion, nuclear thermal propulsion, pulse power plasma propulsion, fission power propulsion, and antimatter propulsion. The electric/plasma propulsion research differed from work at GRC in that MSFC focuses on high-power applications and GRC focuses on low-power applications. Some spin-offs of MSFC research have been worked on, such as the plasma gun, which has helped develop a 20-km/sec projectile launcher for studying micro-meteoroid impacts. Even though this was a very modern and capable facility when it was first built, the research has essentially been stopped, and many of the laboratories appeared to be dormant.

MSFC Assessment

While the facilities at MSFC are currently good to adequate, they are very underutilized, and no additional R&D funding is coming into the center.

The facilities for TRL 1-3 research are underutilized because the scientists and engineers are being moved to work on technologies for specific programs. The committee heard several times that the chief resource that was lacking for basic research was time. MSFC maintains a set of strategic investment technologies in areas where it can obtain a good return on investment—for instance, it aims to feed into a specific mission need. It appeared to the committee members that basic research at MSFC is secondary to the main thrust, which is operations and exploration, and that most research is funded in a technology-pull rather than a technology-push manner. MSFC’s heritage is in propulsion, yet there are only three laboratories within one building doing any propulsion-related basic research. This same building has many empty laboratories not being used at all.

While the MSFC facilities are currently in fairly good shape, the small amount of research funding available limits the ability to make improvements and to maintain state-of-the-art facilities. For example, the propulsion research and development laboratory was built in 2004 and provided with state-of-the-art equipment. However, now that research funding has been mostly cancelled, the data acquisition and control systems are becoming old and obsolete. The basic funding for the NSSTC is also limited, and it is becoming harder to cover salaries let alone laboratory equipment.

Similar to ARC, MSFC is utilizing the strategy of teaming with industry partners and academic institutions to offset the austere budget environment by establishing a research park. By developing these partnerships it is creating a collaborative environment to stimulate innovation and education. As mentioned above, the NSSTC rents a building from the University of Alabama, Huntsville. The von Braun Center for Science and Innovation (VCSI) goes even further, by developing partnerships with other academic and commercial centers such as Alabama A&M University, the University of Alabama at other locations, Auburn University, Science Applications International Corporation, and Draper Laboratory. Dynetics was going as far as investing $4.4 million in VCSI to develop a microsatellite for DOD

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

experiments. These research parks can be an additional mechanism to fund low-TRL activities and appear to be a good way for MSFC to tackle some of its budget challenges.

GLENN RESEARCH CENTER

The GRC main campus is situated on 350 acres adjacent to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. It has more than 140 buildings, including 24 large facilities and more than 500 specialized research and test facilities. In addition, Plum Brook Station, 50 miles west of Cleveland, has four large facilities for space technology development on 6,400 acres.18 Over 20 facilities and laboratories have been identified that conduct or have conducted space related low-TRL research.19 Three members of the committee visited 14 major areas made up of several smaller laboratories and facilities.

GRC employs just over 1,600 civil servants and approximately 1,400 contractors. Of the scientists and engineers at GRC, 72 percent hold advanced degrees, with 25 percent holding Ph.D.’s. The committee members conducted a feedback session with approximately 25 of those scientists directly involved with space and science research at the GRC.

GRC has four main areas of expertise in fundamental research: power, propulsion, communications, and microgravity science. In power, it has conducted basic research in fuel cells, solar cells, batteries, and control components. Power generation technologies include photovoltaic, thermovoltaic, and dynamic power systems. GRC has conducted basic research in electrostatic, electromagnetic, and electrothermal propulsion. It has also conducted applied research, seeking to understand the chemistries and physics involved in chemical propulsion systems in order to evolve the use of nontoxic propellants. GRC has developed tools to analyze combustion stability and do three-dimensional transient modeling. In communications, GRC is developing new concepts for lightweight, cost-effective antennas, such as large, deployable antennas, ferroelectric, steerable phased arrays, antennas integrated with solar cells for power, microelectromechanical systems-based reconfigurable antennas, space-fed lens antennas, and cryogenic receivers. In microgravity science, GRC has conducted basic research on fluid physics, combustion science, and reacting flow systems, including gravity variation.

The center also has developed materials and structures for space environments and has conducted research on a basic understanding of the thermal, chemical, and mechanical properties of martian and lunar regolith.

Funding at GRC

Overall funding at GRC comes from a variety of sources, including, of course, NASA itself. (Chapter 3 contains details of that funding for the various centers.) From the presentations of NASA’s center management, it was learned that a patchwork of funding is used to keep facilities operational. Each center is primarily responsible for its own facility upgrades and maintenance. A few facilities are supported with direct Headquarters funding through the ATP, the Rocket Propulsion Testing program, and SCAP. These facilities generally do not conduct low-TRL research. GRC receives $185 million of CM&O funding, accounting for approximately 28 percent of GRC’s total budget, and is generally used to

18

Glenn Research Center, Research Lab Assessment, Presentation to the committee, September 9, 2009; and http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/aboutgrc.html.

19

Director of Facilities and Real Property Division, NASA Headquarters, TRL 1-3 Building Report, e-mail to the committee, December 4, 2009; and http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/documents/GRC_Capabilities_Space.pdf.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

support the GRC infrastructure.20 It does not have an IRAD budget or a specific B&P budget, nor does it have a specific program in which to invest strategically in large-facility equipment purchased with CM&O funds. Another source of funding is the CoF program, which funds only a small number of projects, primarily those costing at least $1 million. Another funding mechanism is reimbursable contracts, with as much as 80 percent funding for some facilities coming from reimbursable contracts. DM has become a concern at GRC. For FY 2008, the cost of DM was approximately $200 million for active facilities and about $110 million for inactive facilities, and it is growing every year, considerably more than the cost of DM for GSFC and JPL, which had approximately $100 million and $50 million, respectively, for active facilities.21 GRC’s CRV for FY 2008 was just over $3 billion, with an active CRV of about $2.9 billion (see Figure 3.4). It is somewhat difficult to break out how these amounts correlate to research facilities that support TRL 1-3 work. Center management said that they have approximately $90 million in DM and repairs for test facilities. Based on a document provided by the director of Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division of NASA Headquarters, which contained information on DM for only those buildings that support TRL 1-3 research, GRC has at least $13 million in DM for facilities that support space research. The R&T Directorate there does not have many personnel working directly in space-related research. Roughly 6 percent of personnel support NASA’s SMD, 4 percent are assigned to Space Operations Mission Directorate work, and 16 percent are involved in ESMD. From that perspective relatively few R&T personnel work on space-related tasks and probably far fewer on TRL 1-3 work. While GRC has a large complement of space research facilities, they appear to exceed the number that would be expected considering the number of people and space-related mission work.

Details of the Center Visit

During the visit to GRC on October 15 and 16, 2009, the committee members visited several laboratories that are conducting or have conducted low-TRL research. ETDP-funded facilities that were toured include the Creek Road Complex, which includes cell 7 and the small multipurpose research facility, two cells of the research combustion laboratory’s cell 11, cell 21, and the altitude combustion stand. Several research laboratories in the space power research area are being maintained by reimbursable funding. The laboratories that were visited include the energy storage laboratory, the calorimetry laboratory, the photovoltaics research laboratory, and the nanotechnology and quantum dot laboratories. Electric propulsion basic research has very limited funding, however the Electric Propulsion Research Building was toured, and many small space simulation chambers there can support low-TRL research. The building has 28 separate vacuum chambers available for research programs.

The committee visited the ballistic impact laboratory and several advanced metallics laboratories. The materials laboratories included tensile testers, electron microscopes, and rolling mills. Only a few comparable materials laboratories exist elsewhere—that is, in the United States, Japan, and France. The laboratories have the ability to quickly produce small metallic samples.

Several laboratories were visited that support microgravity research, including the combustion research laboratory, which studies fire detection and combustion diagnostics; the human research vision laboratory; the biophotonics research laboratory; and the tissue culture laboratory. The committee visited

20

NASA Glenn Research Center Research Lab Assessment, Presentation to the committee, September 9, 2009; Director, Research and Technology Directorate, Presentation to the committee, October 15, 2009; and Director, Facilities and Test Directorate GRC Test Facility Operations and Maintenance Overview, Presentation to the committee, October 15, 2009.

21

Director, Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, NASA Deferred Maintenance Methodology, Presentation to the committee, September 8, 2009.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×

the 5.2-second zero gravity facility, which is a national landmark. Another building housed the 2.2-second drop tower, which appeared to be mostly dormant at present.

Another group of facilities contains some ESMD and reimbursable work in tribology, dusts, and ISRU research: the tribology and space mechanisms facilities, space environment simulation, lunar dust simulation, particulate characterization/separation laboratories, and ISRU O2 extraction reactor studies. Another area of research at GRC supports microgravity research and research on the ISS. The committee reviewed the fluids and combustion facility, which is a mockup of an identical facility on the ISS, as well as the telescience support center, which is set up to support research payloads on the ISS. The last facility that the group visited was the space communication laboratory, which houses a number of separate rooms for testing different aspects of antennas, including near field, far field, metrology, compact ranges, and miniaturization. This allows fundamental research testing in one central location.

GRC Assessment

GRC is unable at present to provide adequate and stable funding for the equipment, facilities, and support services required for fundamental science and engineering research. Internal funding and NASA Headquarters funding for research have dropped to low levels, and scientists and engineers are spending inordinate amounts of time seeking funding to maintain basic laboratory capabilities. No dollars are allocated from the GRC budget for IRAD. Strategic equipment purchases are difficult because funding must often be pieced together from multiple sources or even over multiple funding years. Many programs have short-term, project-oriented objectives rather than the long-term strategic objectives that should be required from a fundamental research program.

The committee members concluded that many of the laboratories at GRC are not keeping up with state-of-the-art equipment now offered by industry and university laboratories. In many cases it is maintaining existing research facilities but not significantly improving them and not advancing the state-of-the-art in research facilities in its disciplines. In other cases, the difficulty in funding licenses, upgrades, computers, maintenance, and the like is causing equipment and capabilities to deteriorate rapidly. Some equipment is so obsolete that it is not now maintainable (or soon will not be); this ranges from large pieces of equipment to programmable controllers. One laboratory was shut down for a year because there was no money for a computer. It was stated by some GRC staff that they go to neighboring universities to use the equipment. This has both negative and positive aspects: sharing equipment with other researchers who have first claim on its use, but also interacting with peers within a research setting.

A few facilities that support ETDP work have been funded at minimal levels to maintain capabilities for specifically identified activities. These facilities have generally conducted lower-TRL work in the past and are capable of supporting that work. However, the facilities are currently underutilized and support only a small amount of funded higher-TRL work.

The GRC staff noted numerous impediments that had made it more difficult than in the past to support such research and more difficult to acquire and maintain the equipment, facilities, and support services: in some cases, technicians have been moved out of laboratories, and scientists cannot obtain timely technical support even if funded; electric power is limited in some areas because infrastructure has not been fully improved; administrative systems and paperwork are more time-consuming; office supplies have been rationed; and so on.

GRC is not keeping up with the state of the art enjoyed by comparable laboratories.

Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"5 Space and Earth Science Research." National Research Council. 2010. Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12903.
×
Page 66
Next: 6 Findings and Recommendations »
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $41.00 Buy Ebook | $32.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Over the past 5 years or more, there has been a steady and significant decrease in NASA's laboratory capabilities, including equipment, maintenance, and facility upgrades. This adversely affects the support of NASA's scientists, who rely on these capabilities, as well as NASA's ability to make the basic scientific and technical contributions that others depend on for programs of national importance. The fundamental research community at NASA has been severely impacted by the budget reductions that are responsible for this decrease in laboratory capabilities, and as a result NASA's ability to support even NASA's future goals is in serious jeopardy.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!